DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites the phrase, “…managing 3D digital contents claim 1…” which is grammatically incorrect. Suggested correction, replace the above phrase with “…managing 3D digital contents of claim 1…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 10. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 1, in line 25, the limitation, “according to the blockchain technology…” has antecedent basis because blockchain technology has not been mentioned before on the claim. Claim 1 also recite the phrases “the selling price” and “the production cost” in lines 27 and 28 have antecedent basis because selling price and production cost have not been mentioned before on the claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the phrase, “the sale of the products” but there is no mention of products on the independent claim 1. Claim 1 recites production of a product from the final 3D digital content not production of products. Thus this phrase makes the claim 6 indefinite. Suggested correction, replace “the sale of the products” with “the sale of the product” to maintain consistent claim language.
Claims 2-13 depend from independent claim 1 inheriting each and every limitation of claim 1 and therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Claim 14 is a product and process claim since it claims both the product (IT platform) and the method (process) (method of managing 3D digital contents) steps of using the product is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). MPEP.2173.05(p).II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozloski et al. (US 10,438,170 B2) in view of Giles (US 20140365254 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kozloski et al. teaches, method of managing 3D digital contents in a computer system including at least one distributed server (collaboratively producing a computer code – 3D digital content in a blockchain having distributed network of computers and server, Col.1, lines 48-55 and Col.2 lines 40-42),
a connection network to which said shared server is connected (distributed network of computers and server, Col.2, lines 40-42), a plurality of client devices connected to said connection network and associated with respective users participating to the creation and the editing of a 3D digital content (“A distributed network 100 of computer nodes 101, 102, 103, 1041 is formed for the purpose of producing a computer software program2 in a collaborative process carried out by the programmers using the computer nodes 101, 102, 103, and 104…”,.Col.2 lines 13-17), starting from an initial 3D digital content (one of the programmers associated with a node writes a code for inclusion in a computer software program to be produced in a collaborative process, Col.4 lines 28-39), including the steps of:
uploading an initial 3D digital content to said distributed server (at first, (one of the programmers associated with a node writes a code for inclusion in a computer software program to be produced in a collaborative process, which is entered as block D in the blockchain ledger, Col.4 lines 12-29 and 31-35) , to which a respective timestamp is applied (the block created for the initial/first code has a timestamp, Col.1 lines 25-26 and Col.4 lines 12-29);
identifying as authors a set of users qualified to modify said initial 3D digital content (computer nodes 101-104 are associated with users/programmers to collaboratively produce a software program. Each programmer/coder meets the agreement specified by the stakeholders, Col.4 lines 28-39 and claim 1, by means of data defining the respective identity of the users (each code written by each programmer is stored as block in blockchain along with coder location, coder license, other related information and Programmer ID-identity of user, Col.6 lines 13-21, 52-55);
in an elaboration process of a final 3D digital content (collaboratively producing a software program, Col.4 lines 28-39), generating a plurality of modification layers source from the initial 3D digital content (each programmer contributes by writing fragment of code for a collective project such a software code and each programmer can change any line of code to add functionality, fix bugs improve designs or refractor. Each fragment of code is the modification layer and each fragment of code is entered as a block in the block chain, Col.4 lines 28-39 and Col.6 lines 33-37), each N-th layer produced by one or more author of said set of users (fragment of code by each programmer, Col.6 lines 33-37) and provided with a respective timestamp determining a chronological order (each block of program developed by each programmer is timestamped along with sequence of transaction of each block logged into the block chain – chronological order, Col.2, lines 63-64, Col.3 lines 64-67 and Col.4 lines 1-3;
computing, for each generated N-th layer (for each programmer writing a fragments of code for a collaborative software program, Col.6 lines 33-37), a representative index of the creative contribution (customized parameter added to the block to measure the contribution of the each programmer, Col.5 lines 22-26 and of the respective author based on the size of the layer (the number of lines of code determines the size of the code, Col.5 lines 31-32), the time used to generate it (time spend on each stage of progress of the code, Col.5, lines 56-59) and at least a rating based on the complexity of the layer (quality and efficiency of the code written by the programmer determines the complexity of the layer, Col.5 lines 31-32);
for each N-th layer, collecting the management parameters of the layer including: the timestamp thereof (each fragment of code is entered as block with timestamp, Col.2, lines 63-64), a pointer linking to a previous 3D digital content modified by the layer (each fragment of code written by each programmer is entered as block which has timestamp and link to previous block and debugging outcome-previous 3D content modified by layer, Col.2 lines 25-26, Col.5 lines 31-32 and Col.6 lines 35-37) and and see also Col.6 lines 25-28), an identification of the author of the layer (each block created for each programmer as programmer ID associated with the code written, Col.5 lines 27-28 and Col.6 lines 54-55), and said index of creative contribution (storing programmer’s contribution to the code for the collaboratively produced software, Col.11, lines 64-66);
for each generated N-th layer, assigning said management parameters to a file comprising the modified 3D digital content with all layers from 1 to (N-1)-th “…Code transactions and parameters associated with a stakeholder are compiled into a chain of programmer transaction blockchain blocks3. The chain can be considered a chronicle of a piece of software, such as a growing piece of complex code…”Col.3 lines 62-66), together with an encoding of the N-th layer and of the management parameters obtained according to a unique cryptographic code (each block of the programmer including stalkholder parameters (management parameters) are cryptographically signed, Col.4, lines 20-29 and Col.8 lines 28-30), producing a cryptographic hash which is recorded in at least one distributed public ledger according to the blockchain technology (each block has cryptographic hash unique to the block in the blockchain network, Col.9 lines 40-49 and 54-57), producing a tree structure together with the cryptographic hashes of the layers from 1 to (N-1)-th (the blockchain consists of data structure blocks where each block is of fragments of code for a collaborative software program by each individual nodes associated with a programmer/user/coder, Col.2, lines 19-21 and Col.4, lines 12-29);
based on the management parameters obtainable from the tree structure of cryptographic hash assigned to each layer (“…Code transactions and parameters associated with a stakeholder4 are compiled into track of all contributions and annotations made by the coder upon "checking in the code" to the repository. a chain of programmer transaction blockchain blocks. The chain can be considered a chronicle of a piece of software, such as a growing piece of complex code5, and the code "status" path through its recent history or complete history…”,Col.3, lines 62-67 and each block has cryptographic hash unique to the block in the blockchain network, Col.9 lines 40-49 and 54-57).
Kozloski et al. does not teach the details of at the conclusion of the aforementioned elaboration process, computing the selling price and the production cost of a product obtained from the final 3D digital content in a production process, determining an added value and a share thereof to be distributed among the authors of the initial 3D digital content and of the layers added thereto; and processing, for each author, a percentage of due share. However Kozloski et al. explicitly teaches to track the contribution of each programmer to economic rewards as taught in Col.11 lines 23-25. But does not teach the details of about how the share is calculated.
Giles teaches, at the conclusion of the aforementioned elaboration process, computing the selling price and the production cost of a product obtained from the final 3D digital content in a production process (based on optimal production, target quantity to produce the product is determined and the launch price of the product is determined such as $15, [0009] and [0036]-Table-1), determining an added value and a share thereof to be distributed among the authors of the initial 3D digital content and of the layers added thereto (“…The Invention Revenue Sharing calculator demonstrates several things including but not limited to a). calculating the value contributed 6to the development of the invention b). determining the revenue share7 for the inventor(s),collaborator(s), investor(s) and other contributors, c). calculating the projected revenue based on annual sales, d) and calculating the revenue to be distributed to each of the inventor(s),collaborator(s), investor(s) and other contributors on a daily, weekly, annual, or life of the IP basis…”, [0047] and [0051]); and processing, for each author, a percentage of due share (“…If the product is successfully licensed and sold in the marketplace the revenue is then collected distributed to the appropriate parties8…”, [0051] and [0047]).
Kozloski et al. and Giles are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is collaboratively create a product.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of managing 3D digital contents of creating a final 3D digital content while tracking contribution of each author/collaborator in a blockchain network as taught by Kozloski et al. by applying the known technique of based on each collaborator/author contribution and other cost, determine the revenue share for each collaborator or author as taught by Giles to yield predictable results for compensating each of the collaborator based on their individual contribution as taught by Giles in [0043].
Regarding claim 2 combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the method of managing 3D digital contents according to claim 1. In addition Kozloski et al. teaches, wherein the initial 3D digital content is processed by one or more authors and respective management parameters are assigned thereto (Code transactions and parameters associated with a stakeholder are compiled into a chain of programmer transaction blockchain blocks9. The chain can be considered a chronicle of a piece of software, such as a growing piece of complex code…”,Col.3 lines 62-66), together with a cryptographic hash (each programmer with their corresponding fragments of code including initial code and stakeholder parameters are compiled into a block and entered into the blockchain ledger where each block has unique hash code, Col.4, lines 20-29, Col.8 lines 28-30 and Col.9 lines 40-49 and 54-57).
Regarding claim 4 combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the method of managing 3D digital contents according to claim 1. In addition Giles teaches, wherein the step of processing the percentage of due share to each author takes place through an artificial intelligence algorithm (the revenue sharing calculator must be using algorithms or formula as taught in [0052]10 to perform the calculations for each share based on various conditions, [0009] and [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 5 combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the method of managing 3D digital contents according to claim 1. In addition Kozloski et al. teaches, wherein the data defining the respective identity of a user are not accessible by other users (“…In this way, teams may form naturally and innovate on different paths, without having access to the work of other teams, unless the other teams actually share access11 to their versions of the code. The blockchain ensures confidentiality and trust among different interests in this version control system…”, Col.5 lines 14-19).
Regarding claim 6 combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the method of managing 3D digital contents according to claim 1. In addition Kozloski et al. teaches, including a step wherein the proceeds related to the sale of the products are collected, and the percentages of share due to authors are addressed to the authors as economic rewards (“…The calculator also provides annualized revenue share projections for the inventor and all of the collaborators who participate at risk in the development of the product. This allows the parties to see the potential long term value of contributing their work at risk and the parties can make a decision on the likelihood of success of the product before making the determination to provide their resources at risk. If the product is successfully licensed and sold in the marketplace the revenue is then collected distributed to the appropriate parties12…”, [0051]).
Regarding claim 8 combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the method of managing 3D digital contents according to claim 1. In addition Kozloski et al. teaches, wherein said at least one rating includes a self-assessment of the respective author (“…A transaction may also include a consideration of: registering a work-product, a piece of code, a programmer, updating code details relating to purpose or customers13…”, Col.6, lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 9 combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the method of managing 3D digital contents according to claim 1. In addition Kozloski et al. teaches, wherein said 3D digital content comprises a file or a set of files elaborated by a specific three-dimensional modelling software (collaborative work in 3D printed designs that is each programmer design portions (set of files) of the 3D printed design and it must be done using 3D modelling software, Col.11, lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 11, combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the method of managing 3D digital contents according to claim 1. In addition Kozloski et al. teaches, wherein said size of the layer produced is defined by an objective amount expressing a dimension associated with the generated layer (the number of lines in the code will determine the size and efficiency of the code, Col.5, lines 31-32) .
Regarding claim 14 combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the method of managing 3D digital contents of claim 1. In addition Kozloski et al. teaches, IT platform comprising a computer system is implemented (the distributed ledgers associated with the collaborative work may belong to any type of company or service/supplier all using IBM blockchain network, Col.7, lines 30-33 and Col.9, lines 20-35), which is connected to a blockchain network referring to a distributed public ledger (the collaborative coding platform is implemented in IBM blockchain network having distributed public ledgers, Col.7, lines 30-33 and Col.9, lines 20-35).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozloski et al. (US 10,438,170 B2) in view of Giles (US 20140365254 A1) and Schmidt (US 20160052212 A1).
Regarding claim 3, combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the method of managing 3D digital contents according to claim 1.
Neither in combination nor individually Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the details of initial 3D digital content is obtained by a 3D scanning process. However Kozloski et al. teaches the collaborative work can also include 3-D printed designs. The initial design can be obtained by various methods.
On the other hand Schmidt teaches, the initial 3D digital content is obtained by a 3D scanning process (“… Alternatively the 3D model generator 110 may be software that is coupled to a 3D scanner (not shown) that together analyzes an existing 3D solid object to create the 3D model 117 as a digital template for creation of copies14 of the existing 3D solid object…”, [0022]).
Schmidt is an analogous art to Kozloski et al. and Giles because they are from the same field of endeavor that is designing products through iterations.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of managing 3D digital contents where 3D printed design can be done in a collaborative manner as taught by combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles by applying the known technique of obtaining the initial content by 3D scanning as taught by Schmidt to yield predictable result of obtaining the initial 3D digital content when collaboratively designing a 3D printed design.
Regarding claim 10, combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the method of managing 3D digital contents according to claim 1.
Neither in combination nor individually Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the details of initial 3D digital content is obtained by a 3D scanning process. However Kozloski et al. teaches the collaborative work can also include 3-D printed designs. The initial design can be obtained by various methods.
On the other hand Schmidt teaches, the initial 3D digital content is obtained by a 3D scanning process (“… Alternatively the 3D model generator 110 may be software that is coupled to a 3D scanner (not shown) that together analyzes an existing 3D solid object to create the 3D model 117 as a digital template for creation of copies15 of the existing 3D solid object…”, [0022]).
Schmidt is an analogous art to Kozloski et al. and Giles because they are from the same field of endeavor that is designing products through iterations.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of managing 3D digital contents where 3D printed design can be done in a collaborative manner as taught by combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles by applying the known technique of obtaining the initial content by 3D scanning as taught by Schmidt to yield predictable result of obtaining the initial 3D digital content when collaboratively designing a 3D printed design.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozloski et al. (US 10,438,170 B2) in view of Giles (US 20140365254 A1) and Lewolt (US 20120329026 A1).
Regarding claim 7, combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the method of managing 3D digital contents according to claim 1.
Neither in combination nor individually Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the details of said at least one rating comprises an hourly wage of the respective author. However Kozloski et al. teaches when compiling each programmer’s code, it also includes programmer’s comment and system’s rating about the programmer as taught in Col.5 lines 25-45 and Col.6 lines 33-37. Also based on programmer’s role and experience the hourly wage can be inferred.
Lewolt teaches, wherein said at least one rating comprises an hourly wage of the respective author (the bid price to complete the job within the time will include the hourly wage of the bidder completing the job, [0109]).
Lewolt is an analogous art to Kozloski et al. and Giles because they are from the same field of endeavor that is collaboratively working on a product/job.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of managing 3D digital contents having author ratings for the layer created as taught by combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles by applying the known technique of also including hourly wage such as bid price to complete the job by the bidder within a certain time as taught by Lewolt to yield predictable results of rating the author based on author/programmer wage in addition to author’s contribution to the 3D digital content.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozloski et al. (US 10,438,170 B2) in view of Giles (US 20140365254 A1) and Brebner (US 20200005523 A1).
Regarding claim 12 combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the method of managing 3D digital contents according to claim 11.
Neither in combination nor individually Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the details of said objective amount is expressed according to the amount of memory used in the process of elaborating the layer and/ or the use of resources of the client device and/ or the network resources used. However Kozloski et al. teaches in Col.5 lines 44-47, the system tests the greenness of the code based on how the code performs in energy savings and CPU efficiency when running on different devices.
Brebner teaches, said objective amount is expressed according to the amount of memory used in the process of elaborating the layer and/ or the use of resources of the client device and/ or the network resources used (when creating and editing the code in the visual editing environment using the multi-user sync system as taught in [0071], using declarative language and code execution control statement, the creator can state the amount of participation of CPU or GPU during utilization16 of the digital asset created by the code and network layer integration of the code as taught in [0510] and [0513]. The creator can also use various creative assets of the of system (network resource used) such as open libraries as taught in [0113] and [0164]). Brebner, Kozloski et al. and Giles are analogous art because they are from the same field of the endeavor that is editing/designing a product in a collaborative manner.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of managing 3D digital contents having a final 3D digital content consisting of layers as taught by combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles by applying the known technique of determining the amount of memory to be used when the code (layer) will run (elaboration process) and also state by the creator regarding network resources (layer integration) used when running the code as taught by Brebner to yield predictable results of determining amount of memory to be used when running/elaborating the layer.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozloski et al. (US 10,438,170 B2) in view of Giles (US 20140365254 A1) and Stanley et al. (US 20150350885 A1).
Reagrding claim 13 combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the method of managing 3D digital contents according to claim 1.
Neither in combination nor individually Kozloski et al. and Giles teach the details of said size of the layer is computed by a special counter which is started subsequent to said uploading into said distributed server initial 3D digital content and is increased each time the final 3D digital content is elaborated.
Stanley et al. teaches, said size of the layer is computed by a special counter which is started subsequent to said uploading into said distributed server initial 3D digital content and is increased each time the final 3D digital content is elaborated (a counter is started when a task application launch (initial 3D digital content in view of Kozloski et al.) has started and stops followed by incrementing the counter tracking the amount of time the task took to be completed17, [0070]).
Stanly et al., Kozloski et al. and Giles are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is tracking time for a job to be done.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of managing 3D digital content where time spent on each stage of progress of code/layer creation for a collaborative 3D digital content is tracked as taught by combination of Kozloski et al. and Giles by applying the known technique of using a counter which starts when the task is started and stops followed by incrementation when task is completed or stopped as taught by Stanly et al. to yield predictable results of tracking time taken by each author during 3D digital content creation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Loreto (US 20200320458 A1) teaches a system and method tracking contribution of each contributor for a job in a blockchain network to give proper credit to all the contributors by distributing rewards in the form of money or digital coins.
Castinado et al. (US 20220391898 A1) system for generating a combined 3D content based on NFTs from different contributors in a blockchain network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANZUMAN SHARMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7365. The examiner can normally be reached M and Th 7:00am - 3:00pm and Tue 8:00am-12:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMINI SHAH can be reached at (571)272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANZUMAN SHARMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Plurality of client devices connected to the network and associated with respective users as taught in Col.1, lines 53-55.
2 3D digital content.
3 Modified 3D digital content will all the layers (blocks in blockchain).
4 Management parameters along with code are compiled together as block for each programmer creating a chain code having compiled blocks from all the programmers. Each block has unique cryptographic hash.
5 N layers of the software.
6 Added value
7 Based on added value and contribution, determine each collaborator’s share.
8 Each collaborator receives their share of revenue determined based on each collaborator’s contribution and other cost associated with the product,
9 Modified 3D digital content including the initial 3D digital content and management parameters (stakeholder parameters).
10 The formulas can be customized to meet inventor preferences which can include integration of AI algorithms. There are two ways the formulas can be customized either using manual manipulation by the inventor or using AI algorithms. Someone of ordinary skill in the art can choose either option to yield predictable results of calculating each collaborator’s share.
11 Even if one programmer shares their work, their identity is not shared to maintain confidentiality and trust with the blockchain network. The programmers can choose to share their identity or not share their identity while sharing their work. Each option is an obvious variation of each other.
12 When the product is sold, corresponding revenue share for collaborated are collected and given to each collaborator based on revenue share determined based on individual collaboration (value of contributing work). Kozloski et al. also teaches in Col.11 lines 20-25 to track each collaborator’s contribution for reward and credit assignment.
13 Programmer indicating details about the code they used to help the customer- programmer’s self assessment about the code. Also the system itself performs assessment of the programmer such as risky coding or not, amount of time spent for development, programmer’s, quality and efficiency of the code and others as taught in Col.5 lines 24-45.
14 Initial 3D digital content that can be used by individual authors for further designing.
15 Initial 3D digital content that can be used by individual authors for further designing.
16 Amount of memory to be used by the code when running.
17 Final 3D digital content elaborated based on time taken in each phase as taught by Kozloski et al in Col.5 lines 59-60).
Prosecution Insights